resources

Review Review of Generated Waste from Cruisers: , Split, and Port Case Studies

Merica Sliškovi´c 1,*, Helena Uki´cBoljat 1, Igor Jelaska 2 and Gorana Jeli´cMrˇceli´c 1 1 Faculty of Maritime Studies, , 21000 Split, ; [email protected] (H.U.B.); [email protected] (G.J.M.) 2 Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Split, 21000 Split, Croatia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +38-591-3806-997

 Received: 28 September 2018; Accepted: 7 November 2018; Published: 9 November 2018 

Abstract: The amount of waste generated is becoming an increasing problem both in terms of inefficient use of resources and its harmful effects. Large quantities of waste originate from land, but a certain amount of waste is generated at sea, in which shipping holds its share. A recent analysis for 2015–2016 has rated the Croatian ports of Dubrovnik, Split, and Zadar in the top 10 out of 20 main cruising ports in the . As it is clear that a large number of persons present onboard generate a large amount of waste, the aim of this paper is to estimate the amount of waste (plastic, domestic, and food) and examine the significance of its increasing quantity produced by cruisers in the three main cruiser ports in the Croatian part of the Adriatic Sea for the period 2014–2017. Cruise calls correlation, together with repeated measures one-way Analysis of variance -ANOVA, showed that a future increase in the port calls for Zadar can be expected while, for the port of Dubrovnik, a decrease is projected, which is in correspondence with the taken measures for a reduction in the adverse effects of the cruise industry. Regarding the type of waste, domestic waste contributes the most with 62%, followed by the plastic waste with 26%, and food waste, which makes only 11% of the total amount of waste for that year. Waste minimization practices and further recommendations for the improvement of waste management practices are presented and put into relation with specific measures to protect and preserve the quality of the environment.

Keywords: onboard generated waste; cruising industry; management; minimization practices

1. Introduction The threat to marine environment, due to waste disposal from ships, is substantial [1,2]. In recent decades, a strong adverse human influence on the environment has been noted, especially in the coastal zones with wide seasonal population variations (tourism activities) and extensive commercial enterprises [3,4]. Cruise tourism is a dynamic sector which has continued to show a high growing rate, both in the global tourism market and, also, in Croatia. In the past few years, the Adriatic Sea, as part of the , has attracted far more cruise ships than a decade ago, and the cruising boom, although possibly being a gold vein for the economic development and revenue, may also be a possible environmental threat with long-term consequences. Due to the purity of the Adriatic Sea and the beauty of the landscape, in the absence of appropriate waste management on land, pollution caused by waste could have a negative effect on Croatia’s attraction. The aim of this study is to estimate the waste (plastic, domestic, and food) which is produced by cruise ships in the three main cruise ports in the Croatian part of the Adriatic Sea, i.e., the ports of Dubrovnik, Zadar, and Split. Moreover, one of the aims of this paper is to raise awareness of the waste issue, which can arise from the increased cruise traffic in the Croatian part of the Adriatic Sea in the past several years.

Resources 2018, 7, 72; doi:10.3390/resources7040072 www.mdpi.com/journal/resources Resources 2018, 7, 72 2 of 11

In order to adequately organize waste management, it is necessary to predict the quantities that can be produced onboard ships. Furthermore, these estimations can serve as a basis for future port reception facilities’ planning [5]. Although, onboard cruise ships, different categories of waste are generated, the focus of the paper is solely on plastic, domestic, and food waste, considering that, in the Republic of Croatia, the management of this type of waste is still inappropriate. The fact should be stressed that the Republic of Croatia also has great seasonal fluctuations in the number of tourists, and the quantities of waste produced onshore, which cannot be properly managed. Most of the waste from cruisers is actually domestic waste, and it poses a huge pressure on the infrastructure of the coastal cities. The problem in Croatia is still how to sustainably manage even the domestic waste produced by households and, based on that fact, we find it important to point out the possible waste type and quantities that can be produced by cruisers. The Republic of Croatia, after becoming a member of the European Union in 2013, assumed some obligations for drafting and complying the waste issue regulations with the EU regulation. It was only in 2017 that Croatia adopted a Waste Management Plan (WMP) 2017–2023 and Waste Prevention Programme (WPP), together with the Regulation on Municipal Waste Management [6]. However, the implementation of the documents mentioned is inadequate, which means that the practice of landfilling the waste is still the main option [6]. The paper analyses the background of cruise ship-generated waste, and the regulatory framework for waste prevention in the Croatian part of the Adriatic Sea. Using the newest data from European Maritime Safety Agency—EMSA, the calculation of plastic, domestic, and food waste generated from cruise ships in the three main ports of Dubrovnik, Split, and Zadar was done. Also, the paper gives further recommendations for better management of waste originating from cruise ships.

2. Background of Cruise Ship Generated Waste in the Adriatic Sea The waste generated on cruise ships may be sorted into different categories, and the categorization varies but, generally, oily bilge water, oily sludge, oily tank washings, sewage, plastics, food waste, domestic waste, cooking oil, incinerator ashes, operational waste, cargo residues, ozone-depleting substances, and others are distinguished [7]. Also, it should be noted that the classification of waste is sometimes not clear, and there is a mismatch between the classification of waste in The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships MARPOL Annex V, the classification used onboard ships, and the classification used by waste operators. For example, onboard ships, paper, glass, and fluorescent tubes are often collected separately, while their classification in MARPOL Annex V is as “domestic waste” [7]. Domestic waste is all the waste from the domestic spaces onboard ships which is not food waste, cooking oil, or plastic, but which is, e.g., paper, cardboard, fluorescent lamps, synthetic material, foils, metal cans, lids, glass, pantry packaging waste, etc. [7]. Also, each cruise ship has onboard treatment facilities, and the treatment of each of the mentioned waste types differs. The EMSA Report [7] summarizes that, for example, plastics are usually not incinerated, and dirty plastics (plastics that have been in contact with food) are often treated as a separate waste stream. For domestic waste, the treatment differs depending on the type and amount of the waste generated. The treatments include glass crusher, compactors for cans and tins, and incineration of paper and cardboard. The International Maritime Organization IMO defines food waste as any spoiled or unspoiled food substances and includes fruits, vegetables, dairy products, poultry, meat products, and food scraps generated onboard ship. Finally, regarding onboard treatment of food waste, in the areas where it is permitted under MARPOL Annex V, food waste is often discharged into the sea. However, all types of waste produced onboard ships should be separated and, if possible, processed before they are discharged to port reception facilities and managed according to the national legislation [8–11]. Increased maritime transport in all the EU ports presents new challenges to the port logistics in order to efficiently manage waste [2]. According to the Directive 2000/59/EC, port reception facilities should be able to receive all the waste types produced onboard ships [2,11]. Under this Directive, there is no special requirements regarding the environmental fees, methods of Resources 2018, 7, 72 3 of 11 waste delivering, and notifications [2]. Yet, Port Authority should enable the usage of port reception facilitiesResources in such 2018, 7 a, x manner FOR PEER that REVIEW a ship has no delay in the schedule [12]. 3 of 11 Accordingwaste delivering, to the and most notifications recent data,[2]. Yet, in Port 2016, Authority Cruise should Lines enable International the usage of Association port reception (CLIA) estimatedfacilities 24.2 in millionsuch a manner passengers that a atship a globalhas no delay level, in while the schedule the number [12]. is expected to grow in 2017 to 25.3 million,According and in 2018to the to most 27.2 millionrecent data, passengers in 2016, [13 Cruise]. As theLines cruise International industry isAssociation growing fast,(CLIA) and the vesselsestimated are increasing 24.2 million in size, passengers the awareness at a global of level, a consequent while the increasenumber is in expected the waste to grow generated in 2017 onboard to should25.3 also million, increase. and in Although 2018 to 27.2 cruise million ships passengers participate [13]. with As the only cruise 1% inindustry the world is growing shipping fast, fleet, and they producethe vessels 25% of are all increasing the waste in generated size, the awareness on ships[ 14of ].a Theconsequent management increase of in the the wastewaste producedgenerated due to theonboard daily activities should also onboard increase. cruise Although ships cruise is far ships more participate complicated with only than 1% the in managementthe world shipping of waste fleet, they produce 25% of all the waste generated on ships [14]. The management of the waste produced on land. As the categorization of the onboard-produced waste differs, generally speaking, produced due to the daily activities onboard cruise ships is far more complicated than the pollutantsmanagement and waste of waste from produced the cruise on shipsland. As also the include categorization air emissions, of the onboard-produced ballast water, wastewater, waste hazardousdiffers, waste, generally and speaking, solid waste pollutants [15]. The and Cruise waste Shipfrom Dischargethe cruise ships Assessment also include Report air emissions, from 2008 [16] specifiesballast that water, the solid wastewater, waste, whichhazardous is generated waste, and onboard solid waste cruise [15]. ships, The includes Cruise foodShip waste,Discharge plastics, glass,Assessment paper, wood, Report cardboard, from 2008 incinerator [16] specifies ash, that and the metal solid waste, cans. Therewhich areis generated different onboard estimations cruise of the amountships, of includes waste produced food waste, onboard, plastics, butglass, the paper, quantity wood, varies cardboard, in accordance incinerator with ash, theand sizemetal of cans. the ship, numberThere of are passengers different estimations and crew onboard, of the amount as well of wa asste the produced consumption. onboard, It isbut estimated the quantity that varies an average in cruiseaccordance ship of 3000 with passengersthe size of andthe ship, crew number generates of passengers about 50 tonsand crew of solid onboard, waste as in well one as week the [15]. Furthermore,consumption. the UnitedIt is estimated States that Environmental an average cruise Protection ship of 3000 Agency passengers states, and in thecrew 2008 generates Report, about that the 50 tons of solid waste in one week [15]. Furthermore, the United States Environmental Protection waste generated per cruise guest varies from 2.6–3.5 kg/person/day [16]. Agency states, in the 2008 Report, that the waste generated per cruise guest varies from 2.6–3.5 Ifkg/person/day the focus is on[16]. the Mediterranean region, particularly the area of the Adriatic Sea, the statistics show positiveIf the resultsfocus is foron the all Mediterranean forms of maritime region, tourism, particularly especially the area in of the the partAdriatic of the Sea, cruising the statistics industry, with overshow 5positive million results passenger for all movementsforms of maritime in 2016. touris Asm, the especially focus is in on the the part Croatian of the cruising part of industry, the Adriatic Sea, itwith is important over 5 million to emphasizepassenger movements that the most in 2016. recent As the analysis focus is foron the 2015–2016 Croatian haspart ratedof the theAdriatic Croatian portsSea, of Dubrovnik,it is important Split, to emphasize and Zadar that inthe themost top recent 10 ofanalysis the 20 for main 2015–2016 cruising has rated ports the in Croatian the Adriatic Sea (Figureports of1 .)Dubrovnik, While Venice Split, and has Zadar been ratedin the firsttop 10 regarding of the 20 main passenger cruising movements, ports in the DubrovnikAdriatic Sea has confirmed(Figure its 1.) leadership While Venice in terms has been of cruise rated calls first (more regarding than passenger 600), with movements, a share of 17%Dubrovnik of the totalhas [17]. By comparingconfirmed theits leadership maritime in tourism terms of intensity cruise calls in 2012(more and than 2016, 600), itwith can a beshare seen of that17% of some the total regions, [17]. such By comparing the maritime tourism intensity in 2012 and 2016, it can be seen that some regions, such as Zadar and Primorje-Gorski Kotar Counties, show higher maritime intensity. The higher intensity is as Zadar and Primorje-Gorski Kotar Counties, show higher maritime intensity. The higher intensity due tois thedue growthto the growth of cruise of cruise traffic traffic in the in portsthe ports of Zadarof Zadar and and . Rijeka.

Figure 1. Location of the main cruiser port in the Croatian part of the Adriatic Sea. Resources 2018, 7, 72 4 of 11

Dubrovnik, the most important Croatian cruise destination, is one of the major destinations in the Mediterranean. In order to sustainably manage cruising industry in the port, under the provisions of the study “Sustainable Development of Tourism in Croatian Cruising” made by the Institute of Tourism, the Dubrovnik Port Authority seeks to limit the number of passengers from cruise ships to 8000 a day. Also, the Port of Dubrovnik, together with Dubrovnik County, signed an agreement on a common way of booking, according to the principle 2 + 1, which means the reservation of two big ships in the harbor and a large ship in front of the old town [18]. The City of Split, the second largest city in the Republic of Croatia, became an obligatory stop on the Mediterranean cruise routes. Cruise ships usually come to the port of Split after visiting Dubrovnik, and they usually stay for 10 h. During the high season, Split becomes too crowded with yachts, leisure crafts, and weekenders. Furthermore, a problem arises from the fact that the port of Split, ferry port and docking place for cruise ships, is in the very center of the city. This means that, on some days, without the so-called transit guests and ferry crowds, up to five cruisers dock in the port, which amounts to approximately 12,000 people being disembarked onto the narrow streets of the city. The port of Zadar has an ideal geographical location; halfway between Venice and Dubrovnik, Zadar has always been an important transit port. Besides its role in the local, domestic, and international passenger traffic, the past few years have been very intensive for Zadar regarding cruise traffic.

3. Regulatory Framework for Waste Prevention Nowadays, it is of particular importance to set up the strategies for the identification of sources and a successful management of pollution. The first step to address this problem is through the legislation and international agreements. As the Mediterranean Sea has been described as one of the most affected by cruising tourism in the world, it is important to mention the Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution (Barcelona Convention, 1976) [19]. The main objectives of this Convention, ratified by Republic of Croatia more than 20 years ago, is the protection of the marine environment and coastal zones through the prevention and reduction of pollution, and elimination of pollution (land- or sea-based). Besides the earlier mentioned European Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the EU Directive on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues [11] is of genuine importance for the prevention of ocean-based sources of pollution, especially for the reduction of the illegal discharge of ship-generated waste. This Directive is mandatory for all the EU member states. In this Directive, which came into force in July 2003, the following is stated [11]:

• Member States shall ensure the availability of port reception facilities adequate to meet the needs of the ships. • An appropriate waste reception and handling plan shall be developed and implemented for each port. • A ship may proceed to the next port of call without delivering the ship generated waste, if it follows from the information given in accordance with Article 6 and Annex II, that there is sufficient dedicated storage capacity for all ship-generated waste that has been accumulated and will be accumulated during the intended voyage of the ship until the port of delivery.

Furthermore, one of the Directive’s key factors is also the establishment of cost-recovery systems by ports. In this way, vessels are encouraged to discharge their waste on land, and discouraged to dump it into the sea. More than twenty years ago, the Republic of Croatia ratified the United Nations Convention on Oceans and the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This Convention outlines the basic obligations for the reduction, prevention, and control of pollution from various kinds of sources, including land-based and ocean-based sources, but marine litter and discharge of debris at sea were specifically addressed as part of the UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/60/30—Oceans and the Law of the Sea [20], underlining the importance of setting up strategies for waste management in the coastal zone, ports, and maritime industries, which should also include recycling, reuse, reduction, and disposal of waste. Resources 2018, 7, 72 5 of 11

One of the most important international documents regarding pollution prevention from the sea is The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78), which concentrates on different kinds of pollution from ships through the six annexes. The fact is that this convention was ratified by 156 countries with 99.42% of world tonnage [21]. Annex V of the MARPOL Convention, which covers garbage produced onboard ship, entered into force in late 1988 and, so far, has been ratified by 153 countries, including the Republic of Croatia, i.e., 98.97% of the world tonnage [21]. Within the Annex V of MARPOL Convention, the types and quantities of garbage that ships may discharge into the sea, and the distances from land and manner in which they may be disposed of, are determined. For the purposes of the Annex V, garbage includes all kinds of food, domestic and operational waste, all plastics, cargo residues, incinerator ashes, cooking oil, fishing gear, and animal carcasses generated during the normal operation of the ship and liable to be disposed of continuously or periodically [22]. In July 2011, the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) adopted, by resolution, MEPC.201(62) [23], the revised MARPOL Annex V, which entered into force on 1 January 2013. According to the revised Annex V of MARPOL 73/78 Convention, the discharge of all garbage into the sea is prohibited, with some exceptions, regarding food waste, cargo residues, cleaning agents and additives, and animal carcasses. Furthermore, for all the types of ships found within special areas, ships outside the special areas, and offshore platforms and all ships within 500 m of such platforms, the discharge of all other garbage, which includes plastics, domestic waste, cooking oil, incinerator ashes, operational waste, and fishing gear, is strictly prohibited. Also, in March 2012, the MEPC adopted the Guidelines for the implementation of MARPOL Annex V [24] and the Guidelines for the development of garbage management plans [25]. Within the Guidelines for the implementation of MARPOL Annex V, it is stated that, due to the restriction of garbage discharge, the garbage management plan for ships is required. Furthermore, the Guidelines highlight that governments must ensure adequate port reception facilities for garbage from ships, and must promote and encourage ships to use them. The minimization of taking onboard materials that could become garbage is encouraged. Also, MEPC supports the development and conduct of studies and research for the minimization of potential garbage, and a reduction of the negative impact on the environment. The Guidelines propose areas for waste minimization studies [24]:

• development of recycling technology and systems for all types of materials that may be returned to shore as garbage; • development of technology for use of biodegradable materials to replace current plastic products as appropriate. In connection with this, governments should also study the impacts on the environment of the products from degradation of such new materials.

Since March 2018, new amendments of the MARPOL Convention have entered into force. The Amendments of Annex V of the Convention are related to the cargo residues of products hazardous to the marine environment (HME) and Form of Garbage Record Book. Also, the Amendments introduced a new category of garbage, i.e., e-waste. E-waste means electrical and electronic equipment used for the normal operation of the ship or in the accommodation spaces, including all components, sub-assemblies and consumables which are part of the equipment at the time of discarding, with the presence of material potentially hazardous to human health and/or the environment [26]. The Garbage Record Book is divided into Part I for the use of all ships, and Part II which is required for the ships carrying solid bulk cargoes. The new garbage category distribution is shown in Table1. Resources 2018, 7, 72 6 of 11

Table 1. Garbage Record Book distribution according to MARPOL Amendments [26].

Part I Part II A. Plastics J. Cargo residues (non-HME) B. Food waste K. Cargo residues (HME) C. Domestic wastes D. Cooking oil E. Incinerator ashes F. Operational waste G. Animal carcasses H. Fishing gear I. E-waste

4. Methodology for Calculation of Plastic, Domestic, and Food Waste Generated from Cruise Ships in the Three Main Ports of Dubrovnik, Split, and Zadar As there are various categorizations of waste, there are also different kinds of approaches to the calculation of solid waste quantities generated from cruise ships [5,27–29]. For the purpose of this paper, a new source of data regarding estimation of plastic, domestic, and food waste quantities was used. In 2017, the European Maritime Safety Agency published the report “The Management of Ship Generated Waste On -board Ships” [7], where all the categories of ship-produced waste are presented, and the results are based on the data which are collected through ship audits, interviews, literature review, survey among stakeholders, and audits of waste notification forms. The data about the quantities of waste produced daily onboard cruise ships, which are the subject of this paper, are presented in Table2.

Table 2. Amounts of generated waste per day per persons in m3 and drivers [7].

Type of Waste Generation Rate (m3) Drivers Plastics 0.001–0.008 Number of persons onboard Food waste 0.001–0.003 Number of persons onboard; provisions Domestic waste 0.001–0.02 Number of persons onboard; type of products used

The duration of passenger stay and the number of persons onboard determine the solid waste quantities [5]. The data for cruise guest total number and the average number of days spent in the main ports are obtained from the port authority [18,30,31]. By multiplying these values, a detailed statistics of guests per day are calculated. The calculation of waste amount in m3, which is produced onboard ship, was done by multiplying the quantities of each type of waste produced daily per person, and the number of guests per day. By using repeated measures one-way ANOVA, the significance of dynamics of variables of interest was examined. F-statistics, together with the degrees of freedom (F), significance (p), and effect size measure (η2) were presented. Correlation analysis was also applied and the coefficient of correlation (r), coefficient of determination (r2) and significance level (p) were presented. The result was interpreted as significant if p < 0.05. All the calculations were performed by using data analysis software system Statistica 13.2. (Dell Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA). To compare the approach used and the accuracy of the calculated data, information about the accepted amount of waste from cruise ships for the period was requested from the port authorities. The exact data on the amount of the collected waste from cruise ships is provided only by Dubrovnik Port Authority [18]. For the other two ports, data are unavailable (Zadar Port Authority), since waste collection is performed by concessionaires. For the Split Port Authority, there are two concessionaires, and the information is provided only on the total amount of waste which is collected from ships for that year. To test the approach and calculation, the data provided by the Dubrovnik Port Authority will be used. Resources 2018, 7, 72 7 of 11 Resources 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 11

5. Results In 2014, Dubrovnik recorded 577 cruise ship arrivals,arrivals, and 915,065 cruise guests [[18].18]. Two years later, inin 2016,2016, thethe numbernumber ofof guestsguests fromfrom cruisecruise shipsships decreased,decreased, but the numbernumber of cruisecruise shipsships increased to 638,638, whichwhich placedplaced DubrovnikDubrovnik firstfirst regardingregarding cruisecruise callscalls inin thethe Adriatic.Adriatic. The year 2017 showed lower resultsresults regardingregarding guestguest andand cruisecruise calls:calls: 742,665742,665 guestsguests andand 538538 cruisecruise callscalls [[18].18]. According to the Split Port Authority, inin 2016,2016, thethe portport ofof SplitSplit recordedrecorded thethe highesthighest number of cruise calls. With 286 cruise calls and 278,259 cruise guests, this was the best season for the port of Split. Just for comparison, ten years earlier, in 2006,2006, Split recorded 162 cruise calls with 46,999 cruise guests [[30].30]. Cruise numbersnumbers that that Zadar Zadar has has shown shown for for the the short short period period 2014–2017 2014–2017 are quiteare quite impressive. impressive. In 2014, In 772014, cruise 77 cruise calls with calls 53,791 with 53,791 passengers passengers were recorded. were recorded. Three yearsThree later, years that later, number that number doubled; doubled; in 2017, therein 2017, were there 110 were cruise 110 calls cruise with calls 145,000 with passengers. 145,000 passengers. An even larger An even number larger of guestsnumber is of expected guests inis 2018,expected between in 2018, 140–150 between cruise 140–150 calls withcruise around calls with 150,000 around passengers 150,000 [ 31passengers]. [31]. Although the the numbers numbers of of port port calls calls (2014: (2014: 295. 295.6767 ± 255.82;± 255.82; 2015: 2015:319.33 319.33± 257.50;± 2016:257.50; 346.00 2016: ± 2 346.00267.10;± 2017:267.10 294.00; 2017: ± 220.22; 294.00 F±3,6 220.22;= 4.01; pF =3,6 0.07;= 4.01; η2 = p0.68)= 0.07; andη cruise= 0.68) guests and expressed cruise guests in 100,000 expressed (2014: in 100,0003.64 ± 4.30; (2014: 2015: 3.64 3.90± ±4.30; 3.88; 2015: 2016: 3.90 4.16± ± 3.79;3.88; 2017: 2016: 3.60 4.16 ±± 3.00;3.79; F3,6 2017: = 0.61; 3.60 p =± 0.63;3.00; η2F =3,6 0.23)= 0.61; in thep = three 0.63; 2 ηmain= 0.23 ports) in in the the three Croatian main part ports of inthe the Adriatic Croatian Sea partfor the of theobserved Adriatic period Sea forhad thean increasing observed periodtrend, hadANOVA an increasing did not identify trend, ANOVAsignificant did differenc not identifyes. Furthermore, significant differences. the data for Furthermore,Dubrovnik (r the= −0.80; data r for2 = 2 2 2 Dubrovnik0.64; p = 0.20), (r = −Split0.80; (r == 0.45; 0.64; rp2 == 0.20),0.20; Splitp = 0.55), (r = 0.45; andr Zadar= 0.20; (rp = 0.98; 0.55), r and2 = 0.97; Zadar p (r= =0.02) 0.98; byr =using 0.97; pcorrelation= 0.02) by analysis using correlation revealed analysisa decreasing revealed and a not decreasing significant and trend, not significant increasing trend, and increasingnot significant and nottrend, significant and decreasing trend, and and decreasing significant and trend significant of the nu trendmber of of the cruise number guests, of cruiserespectively. guests, respectively.All the data Allwere the provided data were by provided the respective by the Port respective Authorities Port Authorities[18,30,31]. [18,30,31]. Taking intointo accountaccount the average day stay, andand thethe numbernumber ofof cruisecruise guestsguests in total, the number of guests per day forfor eacheach portport waswas calculated.calculated. An average day spent differs from port to port; in Dubrovnik, the the guests guests usually usually spend spend 13–16 13–16 h, h,in inSplit Split and and Zadar, Zadar, the thenumber number is lower, is lower, i.e., from i.e., from8–10 8–10h [18,30,31]. h [18,30 A,31 detailed]. A detailed statistics statistics of guests of guests per day per in day the in ports the ports of Dubrovnik, of Dubrovnik, Split, Split, and andZadar Zadar for the for thefour-year four-year period, period, 2014–2017, 2014–2017, is given is given in Figure in Figure 2. 2.

Figure 2. Overview of guests per day in Croatian portsports for the period 2014–2017. Source: Made by the authors according toto thethe datadata providedprovided byby thethe PortPort AuthoritiesAuthorities [[18,30].18,30].

One-way ANOVAANOVA did did not not reveal reveal significant significant differences differences in the in the 2014–2017 2014–2017 period period (F3,6 =(F 0.463,6 = ;0.46;p = 0.60 p =; 2 η0.60;= 0.20).η2 = 0.20). As expected, As expected, with somewith some fluctuation fluctuation in the in numbers, the numbers, the port the of port Dubrovnik of Dubrovnik had the had highest the numberhighest ofnumber guests of per guests day in per the observedday in the period, observed with pe anriod, average with of an541,301.66 average± of56,128.00 541,301.66 guests ± 56,128.00per day. guests per day. However, comparing the first and the last year of the observed period, a decrease of 19% was noticed. The port of Split is the second largest cruise port with an average of 96,581.26 ±

Resources 2018, 7, 72 8 of 11 Resources 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 11

15,539.83However, guests comparing per day the for first the and observed the last yearperiod. of theIn the observed same period, athe decrease port of ofZadar 19% wasset itself noticed. as anotherThe port major of Split cruise is the port second in Croatia, largest with cruise the port number with anof averageguests per of 96,581.26day in 2017± 15,539.83almost threeguests times per higherday for than the in observed 2014. In period. the observed In the sameperiod period, of four the years, port the of average Zadar set number itself as of another guests per major day cruise was 39,893.14port in Croatia, ± 19,001.30. with the number of guests per day in 2017 almost three times higher than in 2014. In theAs observed indicated period in Table of four 2, the years, quantities the average of ship number-generated of guests waste, per daywhich was are39,893.14 the subject± 19,001.30. of this paper,As are indicated shown within in Table the2, the range quantities of the ofminimu ship-generatedm and maximum waste, which values. are This the subjectmeans ofthat, this for paper, the detailedare shown analysis, within the the minimum range of the (lowest) minimum and andmaximum maximum (highest) values. quantities This means of generated that, for the waste detailed are calculatedanalysis, the and, minimum ultimately, (lowest) an average and maximum between (highest) the two quantitiesvalues for of the generated observed waste period, are calculatedwhich is shownand, ultimately, in Figure an 3. average The results between showed the two that values the amount for the observed of each period,waste depended which is shown directly in Figureon the3. numberThe results of guests showed per that day the and amount the types of each of products waste depended used. directly on the number of guests per day and the types of products used.

10000 ) 3 8000

6000

4000

2000 Volume of waste (m 0 Split Split Split Split Zadar Zadar Zadar Zadar Dubrovnik Dubrovnik Dubrovnik Dubrovnik

2014 2015 2016 2017

Plastic (average m3) Domestic (average m3) Food waste (average m3)

Figure 3. Overview of average waste amounts produced from cruise ships in ports of Dubrovnik, Split, Figure 3. Overview of average waste amounts produced from cruise ships in ports of Dubrovnik, and Zadar in the period 2014–2017. Source: Made by the authors according to the data of number of Split, and Zadar in the period 2014–2017. Source: Made by the authors according to the data of number guests per day and EMSA data [7]. of guests per day and EMSA data [7]. Analyzing the results shown in Figure3, the largest quantities of the total amount of waste wereAnalyzing recorded inthe the results port ofshown Dubrovnik in Figure in 2014,3, the amountinglargest quantities to 10,267.03 of the mtotal3, which amount is in of line waste with were the 3 recordedhighest number in the port of guests,of Dubrovnik per day, in calculated 2014, amounting for this to port. 10,267.03 In the m port, which of Split, is in the line largest with the total highest waste numberquantities of inguests, the amount per day, of the calculated 1891.97 m for3 were this recordedport. In inthe 2015, port again, of Split, in the the year largest when total the highestwaste 3 quantitiesnumber of in guests the amount per day of was the calculated.1891.97 m were For the recorded port of Zadarin 2015, in again, the year in the 2017, year the when largest the quantities highest numberwere calculated of guests inper the day amount was calculated. of 959.54 For m3 .the The port obtained of Zadar results in the showedyear 2017, large the largest differences quantities in the 3 werewaste calculated quantities in of the more amount than 10 of times 959.54 from m the. The maximum obtained recorded results showed in Dubrovnik, large differences and the minimum in the wasterecorded quantities in Zadar. of more Only than for the 10 porttimes of from Zadar, the a maximum continuous recorded increase in in Du thebrovnik, total waste and quantities the minimum were recordedrecorded, in with Zadar. doubled Only quantitiesfor the port observed of Zadar, from a continuous 2015 to 2016. increase Regarding in the total the type waste of quantities waste, domestic were recorded,waste contributes with doubled the most quantities with 62%,observed followed from 2015 by plastic to 2016. waste Regarding with 26%, the type and of food waste, waste, domestic which wastemakes contributes only 11% of the the most total with amount 62%, of followed the waste by for plastic that year. waste with 26%, and food waste, which makesAlso, only the11% amount of the total of collected amount wasteof the fromwaste cruise for that ships year. was obtained from the Dubrovnik Port AuthorityAlso, the for amount the observed of collected period. waste In Table from3, cruise the comparison ships was ofobtained the actual from situation, the Dubrovnik in terms Port of Authoritycollected wastefor the from observed cruise shipsperiod. and In the Table data obtained3, the comparison by calculation of the with actual the used situation, range ofin estimatedterms of collectedvalues, is waste presented. from Consideringcruise ships theand fact the that data ships obtained are obligated by calculation to deliver with waste, the inused order range to have of estimatedenough space values, to storeis presented. the waste Cons untilidering the next the portfact that of waste ships delivery,are obligated the collected to deliver waste waste, is in not order only towaste have generated enough space while to the store ship the is inwaste port. until the next port of waste delivery, the collected waste is not only waste generated while the ship is in port.

Resources 2018, 7, 72 9 of 11

Table 3. Comparison of the actual state of collected waste, and minimum and maximum calculated estimations for the port of Dubrovnik.

Amount of waste (m3) 2014 2015 2016 2017 Amount of collected waste from the concessioners (m3) 6166 6840 6469 6760 Minimum estimated amount of calculated waste (m3) 1811.82 1493.50 1719.81 1470.47 Maximum estimated amount of collected waste (m3) 18,722.23 15,432.83 17,771.41 15,194.92

From the data presented, it can be seen that there are differences between the actual and calculated data. It is important to highlight that the estimations used are liable to changes, due to the number of persons onboard ship. Also, this contributes to the earlier mentioned facts that the classification of waste is sometimes not clear, and there is a mismatch between the classification of waste used onboard ships and the classification used by waste handlers. Although the waste handler should be responsible for a sustainable management of each classification category, according to MARPOL Annex V, this is not the case in many Croatian ports.

6. Conclusions and Further Recommendations It is evident that the cruising industry will continue to grow and develop even more. Profit is always one of the important parts of any equation, but the negative effects and consequences that arise from it should not be neglected. To achieve a smart growth of this industry, all stakeholders must be involved. From the calculations for the three main cruising ports, it can be seen that the waste generated onboard cruise ships in the near future will become a problem, especially the further treatment and disposal of the accepted waste at ports. As there are no proper management policies, it is often the case that the waste is properly separated and treated onboard, but the same procedure is not followed at the port, due to the lack of appropriate facilities. This review, with the following estimations, may be one of the first steps for planning the future management of waste in Croatian main cruise ports. Although the aim of this paper was not waste management, i.e., processes used onboard ships, it all starts there. According to the results and the abovementioned potential problems, possible first steps can be made in waste minimization. In order to effectively minimize waste, it is necessary to sort the waste accordingly. Proper management of the generated waste, which includes minimization of waste and further improvement of waste minimization strategies and practices onboard vessels, is the key for the environment protection and future sustainable development of the cruising industry. Waste management should include reducing, reusing, and recycling methods. The suppliers, with reduced packaging, can also significantly contribute to waste minimization. Additionally, use of grinders, comminutors, or incinerators for domestic waste, which contributes the most to the quantity of onboard waste, is another way to reduce the quantity of waste. The process of drying reduces the quantity and decay of food waste. Through a reduction in the volume and toxicity of waste, great results regarding reduced environmental impact are obtained. As the focus of this paper is on the plastic, food, and domestic waste generated onboard cruise ships, the main issue for Croatia can arise form non-compliance with MARPOL, as well as the EU and national regulations onshore. Although each port authority has its own port rules and regulations in which the procedure of waste collecting is described, this periodically large quantity of domestic waste produces |n additional workload on municipal landfills. Regarding plastic waste, it is extremely important to sort it onboard ships, in order to appropriately manage the plastic waste onshore according to regulations. Due to the fact that plastic can be incinerated only in an approved incinerator, a reduced volume of plastic waste can be obtained using a comminutor or compactor. In our review, plastics make only 26% of the waste quantities; nevertheless, the management of plastic waste is a significant issue. Especially, usage of single-use plastics should be minimized, or forbidden, in order to reduce the quantities of different plastic wastes. Resources 2018, 7, 72 10 of 11

It is of genuine importance to set a quality system regarding waste management, to improve logistic measures for waste acceptance and disposal at the port, to implement new waste minimization processes and procedures, and to educate not only the crew, but also the local community. Obviously, the damage from pollution cannot be completely eliminated, but should be minimized as much as possible, and it is important to establish a quality control system in cruising which, together with legal measures, should contribute to raising awareness about the potential long-term consequences.

Author Contributions: Data Investigation, H.U.B.; Methodology, M.S., H.U.B., I.J. and G.J.M.; Formal Analysis, M.S. and I.J.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, M.S., H.U.B., I.J. and G.J.M.; Writing-Review & Editing, M.S., I.J. and G.J.M. Funding: The APC was funded by University of Split, Faculty of Maritime Studies. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Dashan, E.S.; Apaydin, O. An Investigation on Waste Amount from Ships in Istanbul. Glob. NEST J. 2013, 5, 49–56. 2. Deja, A. Organisation of the reception of ship-generated wastes and cargo residues illustrated by selected examples of European Union seaports. Sci. J. Marit. Univ. Szczec. 2013, 33, 16–21. 3. Oliveira, A.L.; Turra, A. Solid waste management in coastal cities: where are the gaps? Case study of the North Coast of São Paulo, Brazil. J. Integr. Coast. Zone Manag. 2015, 15, 453–465. [CrossRef] 4. Galgani, F.; Hanke, G.; Werner, S.; De Vrees, L. Marine litter within the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2013, 70, 1055–1064. [CrossRef] 5. Ulnikovi´c,V.P.; Vuki´c,M.; Milutinovi´c-Nikoli´c,A. Analysis of solid waste from ships and modeling of its generation on the river Danube in Serbia. Waste Manag. Res. 2013, 31, 618–624. [CrossRef][PubMed] 6. Runko Luttenberger, L. Challenges on Marine Litter Issue in the Adriatic. Pomorski Zbornik 2018, 2, 89–103. 7. CE Delft for European Maritime Safety Agency. The Management of Ship-Generated Waste On-board Ships; Client: European Maritime Safety Agency: Delft, The Netherlands, 2017; p. 89. 8. Cruise Line International Association (CLIA). CLIA Waste Management. Available online: https://www.cruising. org/about-the-industry/regulatory/industry-policies/environmental-protection/waste-management (accessed on 17 January 2018). 9. Zuin, S.; Radonjiˇc,G.; Logožar, K.; Belac, E.; Marzi, B. Life cycle assessment of ship-generated waste management of Luka Koper. Waste Manag. 2009, 30, 3036–3046. [CrossRef][PubMed] 10. Ulnikovi´c, V.P.; Vuki´c,M.; Janˇci´c-Heinemann,R.; Antonovi´c,D. Ship waste quantities prediction model for the Port of Belgrade. Chem. Ind. Chem. Eng. Q. 2011, 17, 239–248. [CrossRef] 11. European Commission Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on Port Reception Facilities for Ship-Generated Waste and Cargo Residues—Commission Declaration 2000. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2000/59/oj (accessed on 10 October 2017). 12. Svaetichin, I.; Inkinen, T. Port Waste Management in the Baltic Sea Area: A Four Port Study on the Legal Requirements, Processes and Collaboration. Sustainability 2017, 9, 699. [CrossRef] 13. Port facilities for Ship-Generated Waste and Cargo Residues. Available online: https://www.cruising.org/ (accessed on 24 October 2018). 14. Butt, N. The impact of cruise ship generated waste on home ports and ports of call: A study of Southampton. Mar. Policy 2007, 31, 591598. [CrossRef] 15. Pallisa, A.A.; Papachristou, A.A.; Platias, C. Environmental policies and practices in Cruise Ports: Waste reception facilities in the Med. Spoud. J. Econ. Bus. 2017, 26, 54–70. 16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report; EPA842-R-07-005; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2008; p. 162. 17. Risposte Turismo. Adriatic Sea Tourism Report 2017; Risposte Turismo: Venezia, Italy, 2017; p. 57. 18. Port of Dubrovnik Dubrovnik Port Authority-Traffic Statistical Reports. Available online: http://www. portdubrovnik.hr/ (accessed on 12 October 2017). 19. UNEP/MAP. Marine Litter Assessment in the Mediterranean 2015; UNEP/MAP: Athens, Greece, 2015; p. 45. Resources 2018, 7, 72 11 of 11

20. Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly. Available online: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/ods/A- RES-60-1-E.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2017). 21. International Maritime Organization (IMO). International Maritime Organization-Status of Treaties. Available online: http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/StatusOfConventions/Documents/ StatusOfTreaties.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2018). 22. International Maritime Organization (IMO). Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships. Available online: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/environment/pollutionprevention/garbage/Pages/Default.aspx (accessed on 15 December 2017). 23. Amendments to the Annex of the Protocol of 1978 Relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. 1973. Available online: https://www.mardep.gov.hk/en/msnote/pdf/ msin1249anx2.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2017). 24. 2017 Guidelines for the Implementation of MARPOL Annex V. Available online: https://www.mardep.gov. hk/en/msnote/pdf/msin1719anx1.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2017). 25. Guidelines for the Development of Garbage Management Plans. Available online: http://www.imo.org/ en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/Garbage/Documents/2014%20revision/RESOLUTION% 20MEPC.220%2863%29%20Guidelines%20for%20the%20Development%20of%20Garbage%20Management% 20Plans.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2017). 26. Amendments to the Annex of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as Modified by the Protocol of 1978 Relating Thereto Amendments to MARPOL Annex V. Available online: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/Garbage/Documents/ 2014%20revision/RESOLUTION%20MEPC.201(62)%20Revised%20MARPOL%20Annex%20V.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2017). 27. Cari´c, H. Direct Pollution Cost Assessment of Cruising Tourism in the Croatian Adriatic. Financ. Theory Pract. 2010, 34, 161–180. 28. Cari´c,H. Cruise Tourism Environmental Risks. In Cruise Tourism and Society; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 47–67, ISBN 3642329918. 29. Sliškovi´c, M.; Uki´c, H.; Boži´c, K. Assessment of Solid Waste from Cruise Ships in the Port of Split. Trans. Marit. Sci. 2016, 5, 155–160. [CrossRef] 30. Port of Split Split Port Authority-Traffic Statistical Reports. Available online: https://portsplit.hr/ (accessed on 12 October 2017). 31. Port of Zadar Zadar Port Authority—Traffic Statistical Report. Available online: http://www.port-authority- zadar.hr/index.php (accessed on 12 October 2017).

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).